In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

On Ethical Food

bean

To my surprise, my food posts (I am, after all, supposed to be feminist & foodie) have sparked serious controversy ’round these parts. So let’s see what happens today, when we throw religion into the mix.

Interestingly, though, here it is religion that is the issue around which people are converging, or at least a motivating factor for that convergence. Yesterday, the NY Times Dining & Wine section featured an article pithily titled “Of Church & Steak,” which surveyed various religious movements working toward more ethical food production. Movements are emerging among Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals, and Muslims that push not only to slaughter animals in the most humane way possible (a focus of the Jewish kashrut laws or Muslim Halal), but also to ensure that the animals live cage free and that the people who care for and slaughter the animals are treated with respect and are paid living wages (not minimum wage). It’s food as social justice.

It’s not that this blending of green/sustainable/humane living and religion is anything new (eco-Kashrut has been around for about 30 years, as the Times notes, and which finds a modern home here). What’s new is the growing popularity of these movements, and their increasing power within their own religions. In Judaism, for example, the Conservative movement (less tied to the texts of Jewish law than Orthodox but more concerned with tradition and law than Reform) is in the process of creating a new kind of Kosher seal that would take into account issues of sustainability, humaneness during life, and treatment of human workers. (Apologies for the focus on Judaism; it’s what I know most about and would welcome perspectives from other religions on comments).

This change is clear both in the growth of interreligious work on ethical meat and in each religion. In the words of the inimitable Joel Salatin, proprietor of Polyface Farms, and a central figure in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, put it well in the Times article:

“Ten years ago most of my farm visitors were earth muffin tree-hugger nirvana cosmic worshipers,” Mr. Salatin said. “And now 80 percent of them are Christian home schoolers.”

I can’t preach from a bully pulpit on this issue — I’m headed to Peter Luger‘s tonight, where I doubt they use what I would call ethical and sustainable meat. But for me it’s something to aspire to, for ethical reasons that are both religious and secular.

(also at LGM)

93 thoughts on On Ethical Food

  1. The biggest difference between kosher slaughter (which I’ve seen firsthand in the case of chickens) and non-kosher is that under kashrut , the animal must be conscious when its throat is slit.

    It’s hard to imagine how that’s more “humane” from the animal’s viewpoint. If I were a chicken, I think I’d want to be knocked out first.

  2. I don’t know. The way it’s described in the Omnivore’s Dilemma when Salatin kills chickens doesn’t sound that traumatic. If you lift them up by the feet and turn them upside down, apparently they get calm or confused and just sit there.

    I don’t eat meat, and I thought it sounded relatively humane.

  3. “Food production”? You mean planting grains or breeding animals for the sole purpose of killing them to please your palate?

    Those are two different things. I am all for the first, but opposed to the second.

    Killing isn’t ethical. Ever.

  4. The idea that you can “ethically” kill someone for the sake of your taste buds sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ethics have to be backed up with logic. If you think that animals are sentient enough to desire space to move, social interaction, or a death that they didn’t see coming, then you seem to believe that they are interested in living happily and avoiding their demise. If so, then how can you justify killing them, if they don’t want to die? How is their right to continue occupying their body less important than the right for them to be allotted a larger amount of space in an egg operation, especially when there is an alternative?

  5. Daisy, I hear you. Part of me wants to be on board with the movement to treat farm animals more humanely, but I really can’t. I was talking to a guy this weekend who’s all into that, and at first I was happy for him. Then he started talking this cow he and his friends bought. And how he met the cow beforehand. I nearly choked when he said that. How could you eat an animal after you’ve met him/her? I try to be understanding, but I really don’t understand how omnivores live with themselves. I can understand those who just pretend that what’s in the grocery store was never actually a being, but once you’ve accepted that it was, and even met one of them, how do you continue to eat them?

  6. #3 Reminds me of this old joke:

    A man touring a farm finds a pig with a wooden leg. He asks the farmer about it.

    “Well, sir,” the farmer said, “last month my little boy fell in the creek and started to drown. This pig jumped in, grabbed my son with his teeth, dragged him out, then performed CPR on him and saved his life.”

    “That’s incredible!” the visitor said. “But you still haven’t told me about the wooden leg?”

    “Well, a pig like that,” the farmer replied, “you don’t eat all at once.”

  7. There’s an easy way to move in that direction.

    Stop. Eating. Meat.

    Just stop. When you go to Peter Luger, you are participating in something that a) fucks up the environment b) contributes to antibiotic resistance in the population c) exploits illegal immigrant labor d) squanders water and pollutes communities e) will give you heart disease and cancer and f) is cruel and unethical.

    I recommend two things: Watch a film called “Earthlings” that is online, and read Carol Adams’ _The Sexual Politics Of Meat._

    Seriously, just stop. I did and it was the easiest, most joyful thing I have ever done.

    Lillet

  8. I try to be understanding, but I really don’t understand how omnivores live with themselves. I can understand those who just pretend that what’s in the grocery store was never actually a being, but once you’ve accepted that it was, and even met one of them, how do you continue to eat them?

    I actually have the opposite feeling. I just don’t understand how someone can pretend that what they’re eating was never alive, that its just a slab of protein that came under plastic in a chill case. I have far more understanding, and respect, for people who are able to face what they’re eating, accept it, and come to some kind of moral conclusion. The complete disconnection of human beings from their food disturbs me, and I feel like it really contributes to why factory farming operations are as bad as they are. If you aren’t facing the fact that what you’re eating was once alive, even if you don’t consider the animal an equal, then you aren’t even going to consider how it might have been treated prior to making it to your plate.

  9. William, I never said it was good that people ignore where meat comes from, I just can understand eating meat in that case, much more than I can understand meeting a cow, and then eating it, even if someone else is doing the killing (slaughtering a cow yourself is completely, utterly, incomprehensible to me).

  10. This is kind of off topic but it always annoys me that the meat industry is never cited as something that contributes to the destruction of the environment. Wel lnot never but in most mainstream list of things you can do type things, none EVER mention, that not eating meat will help the environment. That really annoys me.

    Oh and the sexual politics of meat is definitely worth reading…

    As for the no sense of where the meat is coming from vs. meeting the animal…I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it. It’s obviously much easier to eat something you’ve never met, but I think that if more people know where it’s coming from, and CARE where it’s coming from, and still decided to eat it, we’d be much better off than we are now…

  11. Wel lnot never but in most mainstream list of things you can do type things, none EVER mention, that not eating meat will help the environment.

    A minor quibble – a single person not eating meat does not help the environment at all. The cows are just as dead, they’ve pooped just as much, and if the effort isn’t concerted, the producers haven’t even noticed. Which is not to say that individual action isn’t important – it’s good for your health, it makes you feel better about how you’re living, you remove the personal tie to the industry, etc. – but it is important to note that individual action != systemic change.

    That’s a pet peeve of mine, sorry.

  12. I have a question for those who oppose all kinds of cattle farming:

    If we can’t eat them and we can’t milk them, what do you propose we do with all the cows?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m an environmentalist and an animal lover. I only eat local, certified free range meat/dairy. I try to ensure that the animals I consume have had the best life possible. I’m strongly opposed to hunting and to factory farming.

    But seriously, cows are domesticated. They cannot survive in the wild. What should we do, if not raise them for meat or dairy? Let them go extinct?

    What about carnivorous pets, like cats? Should we just stop feeding them? No cattle means no cat food. No cat food means feral or semi-feral cats. Do we want that?

    So we do away with all domesticated animals, and we do away with all pets who depend on domesticated animals for sustenance.

    That’s mass extinction. Are you really arguing that that’s for the best?

    Also, the environment argument I hear from some vegans and vegetarians fall flat. It’s all well and good to argue that the CO2 output is higher for cattle farming than it is for crop planting, but in that case it is pretty damning to be in Massachusetts and eating avocados in January.

    I do my best to help the environment by eating local, and cruelty-free. I resent being told that that makes me unethical.

  13. A minor quibble – a single person not eating meat does not help the environment at all.

    That’s like saying that a single person not driving a car doesn’t help the environment at all. It reduces the demand for oil/meat, and while it’s only a tiny amount, every person who doesn’t drive/eat meat shows other people it’s possible to at least reduce what they use, and they are increasing demand for public transportation/vegetarian foods so it’s easier for others to follow.

    It’s obviously much easier to eat something you’ve never met, but I think that if more people know where it’s coming from, and CARE where it’s coming from, and still decided to eat it,

    See, that’s what I don’t get. If I met a cow, and then someone cooked me a steak and told me that was Bessie the cow I met before, I’d throw up. I don’t know how someone could know exactly where their meat comes from and still decide to eat it. I have to ignore that I know where meat comes from just to around it, let alone eat it, so I really don’t understand how anyone can know where meat comes from and even meet the animals and still decide it’s ok to eat meat.

  14. Killing isn’t ethical? Wow. Better stop eating, then. Unless your biology class taught you that plants are inanimate objects. And please don’t start in about them not being conscious or sentient or whatever. You don’t know that any more than I do.

    Re: the animal being conscious during kashrut or halal slaughter: What’s the alternative? If you dope it up with drugs you risk the health of those who will consume it; also, Muslims are forbidden to consume drugs that change consciousness unless their lives depend on it. If you kill it before you cut its throat then it will not bleed out all the way, and both Jews and Muslims are forbidden to consume blood. Also, I can’t imagine eating blood is terribly healthy. This is actually one of the more merciful ways to die, and certainly a lot safer for the worker doing the killing. Have you looked into the conditions at slaughterhouses lately? I do not refer to what the food animals suffer, although that’s an issue too.

    As for refusing to eat meat, that’s not an option for some of us. I might have been able to adapt a vegetable-based vegetarian diet at eighteen, but my body’s been too far damaged by grain and sugar consumption by now and I need animal protein to help me regulate my blood sugar. I am not diabetic yet but I am very close, and I don’t care to go any farther in that direction.

    Also, trying to get all your vitamins and minerals and such without eating animal foods is not sustainable. Neither is running a small, self-sufficient farm without them. Feeding grain to animals is indeed a fool’s errand and renders the meat less nutritious besides, but animals still turn plant material into energy that we would not otherwise be able to eat. And at this point turning domesticated animals loose to live in the wild would mean condemning them to death. It isn’t meat-eating that’s the problem, it’s how animals are raised.

  15. I try to be understanding, but I really don’t understand how omnivores live with themselves. I can understand those who just pretend that what’s in the grocery store was never actually a being, but once you’ve accepted that it was, and even met one of them, how do you continue to eat them?

    It’s actually pretty damn easy.

    At every meal I thank the spirits of the critters and plants who were sacrificed so that I might continue to live.

  16. Sorry, realized I wasn’t clear. I just meant that the information should be out there to give more people the chance to decide if they want to support an industry that does so much harm to the environment and that information should be more mainstream.

  17. A minor quibble – a single person not eating meat does not help the environment at all. The cows are just as dead, they’ve pooped just as much, and if the effort isn’t concerted, the producers haven’t even noticed.

    I don’t know. I don’t buy meat, fewer (not many fewer, but still fewer) cows are killed for me to pay for, fewer cows are raised, less poop and methane gets produced, less grain, water, etc gets used. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand people and it becomes significant. And I set a tiny example for many other people in my life that it’s possible to eat happily and healthily without meat.

  18. It’s actually pretty damn easy.

    At every meal I thank the spirits of the critters and plants who were sacrificed so that I might continue to live.

    You’re not alone, armagh444. I’m at peace with my inner predator, and feel that it is no more immoral for humans to eat meat than it is for bears. Those are good, tasty calories, with complete proteins.

    Returning to sustainable, environmentally sound farming methods is good practice.

  19. There’s a reason I don’t generally have too many problems with hunters. First, they eat their kills (anyone who goes just for a trophy, isn’t a real hunter, as any long-time inhabitant of the North Woods will firmly tell you), so they’re firmly connected to their place in the natural cycle. Second, they perform a valuable population control function.

    I remember having to explain this one to a visitor from NYC once. She simply could not wrap her mind around the fact that, without the population management provided by the hunting seasons, deer in this state would be starving to death at a frightening rate.

  20. I don’t think there is anything inherently unethical about eating meat. I keep kosher because I truly think it’s G-d’s will, but I also think that he wants us to recognize the life of the animal that we are taking and minimize our consumption of meat. I eat meat maybe once a month. If people even just cut back on eating beef, there would be a lot fewer rainforests cleared for grazing land.

  21. I’m at peace with my inner predator, and feel that it is no more immoral for humans to eat meat than it is for bears.

    You have no more moral sense or intelligence than a bear? Wow, that’s pretty amazing.

    I guess you probably think Michael Vick is a cool guy too, then.

  22. You have no more moral sense or intelligence than a bear? Wow, that’s pretty amazing.

    I fail to see where it’s immoral to eat meat, and yes, kill to eat that meat, that’s all. I’ve noticed a trend on feminist blogs to consider omnivores immoral, and to question our commitment to feminism. There’s an idea that eating meat is a “primitive” act; that truly advanced, intelligent people don’t do it. And that yes, eating meat is a masculine, patriarchal act. That would probably be news to our matriarchal ancestresses who also ate meat.

    Hey, whatever’s on your plate is ok by me. Just like whomever is in your bed is ok by me—that’s your body, not mine.

  23. The whole “complete protein” thing is a myth that has been debunked over and over and over.

    If you read a story about a guy who was busted for blowtorching dogs in the face because he got off on it, you would be repulsed and rightly revile said guy as a sadist.

    But meat eaters are no different, as they simply outsource their animal abuse because they like the taste of meat. Factory farming is animal abuse 24/7. Please spare me the faux “I’m so grateful to the lives of the animals that made up my dinner:” True gratitude is sparing them from dinner in the first place.

    And as for the “individual action /= any social change” trope: I suppose you oppose voting and energy conservation? Or personal accountability across the board?

  24. Look. You have your choice about diet, I have mine. Don’t assume I don’t know where my meat comes from; I do. Don’t assume I am uncomfortable killing my meat; I’m not. Do I do so on a regular basis? No, I’m an urban dweller. Is it morally wrong to “outsource”? Hmm, did you sew all your own clothing? How about making all your own textiles with which that clothing is made? And don’t you know how polluting the textile industry is?

    Look. Why make the “perfect” the enemy of the “good”? Bean submitted a post on organic farming. I think it’s a fair assumption based on her food posts that she has no interest in giving up meat or animal products in her diet. Why should our choices be limited between veganism and industrial farming? Because whether you want to admit it or not, most of us aren’t going to be sold on veganism. I think soy tastes like hell. I’m not going to turn eating from a pleasurable experience into an unpleasurable one. I like variety in my diet, and that includes meat, fish, cheese, eggs, etc.

    This idea that organic production is as environmentally harmful as factory production is ridiculous. That’s like arguing that buses and the subway or “el” are just as environmentally harmful as cars—that the only morally just choice is riding a bicycle (which would only bring out the hardcore, pointing to the environmental pollutants that result from the production of rubber for tires, and steel, aluminum and titanium for frames).

    Don’t ignore the power of the taste buds—that’s a survival adaptation, the same as our fight-or-flight response (another survival adaptation that gets short shrift). Is it possible to ignore our drive for tasty food? Sure it is. Just like it’s possible to ignore our drive for pleasure through sex. Is celibacy a likely choice for a large portion of humanity? Nope. And most folks who like the taste of meat aren’t going to choose otherwise.

    So, does the perfect become the enemy of the good, or what? Also, maybe you missed that armagh444 and myself (and others, I’m sure) are grateful for the plant life on our plates, also. It’s called “the circle of life”. Someday, worms and bugs will be dining on me—and that’s as it should be.

  25. You have no more moral sense or intelligence than a bear? Wow, that’s pretty amazing.

    I guess you probably think Michael Vick is a cool guy too, then.

    Nice, personal attacks in response to an opposing view. You’ve certainly shown all of us the error of our ways, what with your shaming and moralism and superior mental acumen. Way to attack someone else for their personal choices.

    But meat eaters are no different, as they simply outsource their animal abuse because they like the taste of meat. Factory farming is animal abuse 24/7. Please spare me the faux “I’m so grateful to the lives of the animals that made up my dinner:” True gratitude is sparing them from dinner in the first place.

    Thats a strawman of an argument. You are using the existence of factory farming (something which no one here has done anything but condemn) to make a swipe at all carnivorous behavior. While it is true that most people get their meat from factory farmed sources, that is a problem with society, not a problem with eating meat.

    Put another way. I have a shotgun for home defense. Lets say I bought a box of slug rounds, mounted mid-range sights, tossed it in my trunk, and drove out to the woods. After a day or so I spot a mature deer and fire one shot, killing the animal outright. If my only interest in this carcass is meat (sport hunters really ought to be tarred and feathered), is that the same level of cruelty as what you see in some factory farms? Can you really say that those two situations are equal?

  26. Lillet-

    Not everyone who eats meat eats factory farmed meat.

    Conveniently forgetting that there are other ways to be ethical than total veganism is sort of offputting to those who are part of your cause, ya know?

    Ethical, sustainable farming, along with reduced eating of meat – I eat meat only once per week, which is something much more of the population is likely to do than become radical vegans, will do more good than bashing and naysaying those who would support you.

    I understand that you passionately feel that any consumption of any animal is wrong, and I applaud your committment to your passions. My own sense of ethics disagrees. However, I feel that we owe a measure of respect, compassion and mercy to all life, ergo my devotion to the ethical, sustainable and humane treatment of all animals, whether they are raised for consumption or not. And I think on that we can agree.

  27. Please spare me the faux “I’m so grateful to the lives of the animals that made up my dinner

    Faux?

    Here’s a thought. How about stowing your “urban hipster” elitism and self-righteous priggishness long enough to actually bother finding out something about what you’re talking about.

    Immoral? According to some. Cruel? According to some. Faux? Not on your fucking life.

  28. Point of clarity, as I accidentally cut an important sentence from the above comment.

    The gratitude offered at each meal is a part of my religious practice as a Celtic Pagan.

  29. Thank you for the clarity, Armagh444. It was not clear that you actually articulate your gratitude as part of your religious practice. [ I would still maintain that more gratitude is shown to other animals by not consuming them, but clearly we won’t reach agreement on that question.]

    I fail to see how my moral calculus with regard to my dietary choices makes me an “urban hipster” or a “prig.” It’s funny when people jump to conclusions while jumping down someone else’s throat for what they feel is doing the same. 😉 And way too easy to do in a comments section.

    Best, Lillet

  30. I fail to see where it’s immoral to eat meat, and yes, kill to eat that meat, that’s all. I’ve noticed a trend on feminist blogs to consider omnivores immoral, and to question our commitment to feminism.

    Why do you think you have the right to kill another creature to satisfy your palate, rather than for self-defense of for necessity/survival? No, it isn’t moral, justify it however you want. You either believe it’s okay to use animals however you please, to kill them for the decadent purpose of your pleasure, or you don’t.

    If so, Michael Vick, dogfighting, cockfighting, sticking firecrackers up cat’s asses as my brother used to do, all is morally fine with you. Right? Because there is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL in these behaviors. Just sentimental cultural attachments to certain animals over others.

    This has nothing to do with a commitment to feminism or not, and I never said it did. You are reading something into my comments that I didn’t say, just as you did on Ren’s thread.

    Please stop doing this, or I’ll start taking it personally. Thanks.

  31. Why do you think you have the right to kill another creature to satisfy your palate, rather than for self-defense of for necessity/survival?

    For the same reason the bear does. Meat-eating is part and parcel of human evolution. And it is a part of survival. We—meaning humans, perceive meat as tasting good because it is one of many healthy options for us to eat. It is a part of survival. Farm animals have lived amongst humans for millenia; it’s been good for our survival. The choice to eat meat and the choice not to are morally equivalent choices in my view, just as the choice to practice one religion (or not) over another. Your mileage may vary.

    If you can’t see a difference between killing for meat or killing for self-defense, and betting on which animal is going to kill another in the ring, then I can’t help you to understand. Our worldviews are just too different—we can agree to disagree. Take it as personally as you want to take it.

  32. I don’t necessarily buy the evolution concept. Especially when you consider things like intestinal length of humans vs. carnivores. I also don’t buy the healthy argument.

  33. We—meaning humans, perceive meat as tasting good because it is one of many healthy options for us to eat.

    I think most people perceive cake as tasting better, but that’s not a healthy option.

    Humans were initially scavengers – we could eat whatever. Which is why different cultures eat totally different things, from the vegetarian Hindus to the mostly carnivorous Inuit, based on culture and availability. In a modern society where you have access to lots of different foods you can choose to be vegetarian. There’s nothing forcing you to eat meat.

  34. I also don’t buy the healthy argument.

    Then here’s something for you to consider.

    I have celiac disease. I cannot eat wheat (and some other things). This means, also, that I cannot eat most processed foods. But I also cannot eat, among other things, corn, bell peppers, many dairy products, or most soy products. (For reasons unrelated to celiac disease, by the way.)

    I also do not have a lot of money. It would not be wrong to call me poor.

    So. I need to buy fresh, unprocessed, nutritional foods on a limited budget. I need to get my protein somewhere – can’t get it from soy products, or most packaged stuff. Gotta get it cheaply anyway.

    Hm. I know. There’s this thing called “meat”. Cheap, full of protein and other nutritious things, and I can eat it.

    Sorry, but if it’s a choice between my health and an animal’s life, the animal loses, and that’s MORAL.

    (I almost feel bad writing this, ’cause it feels like I’m asking for an exemption. “No, I have a REASON. I’m a MORAL meat-eater.” Look, truth is, you don’t have the right to fucking judge someone. Not over this. You don’t know why they’re choosing to eat what they do, so lay off.)

  35. Incidentally, it’s funny, but I would totally understand if someone ate me out of necessity. (I wouldn’t like it, mind, but I’d understand.)

    Cannibalism is our big taboo. But I never could feel anything but sorrow for the Donner party and suchlike, and a sort of awe at the people who did what they had to to live.

  36. I’ve met vegans who are allergic to soy. They eat a lot of beans and nuts, which are cheaper than meat. It wouldn’t be impossible for you to be vegetarian, Alix.

  37. Nothing I said was judgemental. I just said that I don’t believe certain arguments put forth about why humans should be eating meat. I really just think people get overly defensive when other people talk about why they don’t eat meat. Obviously in some cases it is something you need to survive, but in most cases it isn’t.
    I never said no one should ever be allowed to eat meat again or anything like that and I never said anyone here was a bad person or immoral so I don’t really get why you’re telling me to lay off.
    I also think you get nowhere telling people what to do, so I wouldn’t tell someone directly that I think they should stop eating meat (unless they had really high cholesterol or something). That doesn’t work.
    There’s a difference between telling people what to do and stating my opinion about something. I don’t think it’s particularly healthy, there are plenty of non-meat foods that aren’t healthy either. If someone was going around saying french fries were healthy and someone said “um, I don’t really think so…” I doubt there’d be the same problem.

  38. For the same reason the bear does. Meat-eating is part and parcel of human evolution.

    So is war, xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, able-bodiedism, capitalism, uninterrupted fertility, etc. So? Do you think all of those are good? If so, no wonder we disagree.

    And it is a part of survival.

    One doesn’t need meat to survive. There are entire populations on Earth (particularly Hindu, Jain and Buddhist) that have never eaten meat, and reproduce very well.

    We—meaning humans, perceive meat as tasting good because it is one of many healthy options for us to eat.

    Do you eat dogs and cats? Why not? You wouldn’t enjoy it. It might be impossible, in fact, for you to eat it once someone informed you that it was a cat or a dog. …menus, food choices and eating habits are culturally learned, as our habits in such things as listening to music are also.

    Modern meat production is far from healthy. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is banned in Europe, but not in the US. Antibiotics in meat (primarily in chickens) are causing drug-resistant super-strains of various infections, and may lead to a rebirth of TB as an epidemic. The meat industry has a very powerful lobby and is able to feed animals anything they choose, and by law do not have to tell you what they feed the cows. A manufacturer simply writes “Contents: beef” on their labels. They never tell you what is in your meat, and have fought like hell to have ANY such consumer information on their labels. I refer you to MAD COWBOY by Howard Lyman (the guy Oprah was interviewing when the meat industry decided to sue her.)

    If you are talking about free-range animals (as Bean is), that’s something else.

    Tour a slaughterhouse and try not to wretch.

    It is a part of survival. Farm animals have lived amongst humans for millenia; it’s been good for our survival.

    Factory farming is a disgusting, filthy practice. I suggest you check out the PETA film clip “Meet your meat”–not that I expect you to.

    The old fashioned family-farm has not existed for many decades and is primarily a Eurocentric phenomenon, at that.

    The choice to eat meat and the choice not to are morally equivalent choices in my view, just as the choice to practice one religion (or not) over another.

    If you think animals exist for you to kill and torture as you please, as my little brother did or Michael Vick do, and you don’t care about them, of course this would be your opinion. If you care about animals, you would be bothered by killing them. You obviously feel that God has given you dominion over the animals and you were given the God-given right to kill them.

    If you are not religious, the only reason is simply not caring about animal suffering and death, and believing that your pleasure takes precedence over their pain.

    If you are into the Eurocentric model of farming, mentioned above, you leave the disturbing, unhealthy and filthy practice of actually slaughtering animals to someone else. I doubt you have ever done it yourself. If you had to take responsibility for your own actions, and kill the animals yourself, you probably wouldn’t/couldn’t do it. You find it easier to let some immigrants with no rights and no workmen’s comp do it for you. (The US meat industry is one of the most exploitive in the world, not surprisingly.) Hunting is actually more morally responsible than passively leaving the dirty work to someone else.

    Of course, one country learning to exploit the people from another, is part of “evolution” too, right?

    Your mileage may vary.

    If you can’t see a difference between killing for meat or killing for self-defense, and betting on which animal is going to kill another in the ring, then I can’t help you to understand.

    You can’t explain it because there is no difference. If one of you omnivores ever successfully explains it, I’ll change my mind. So far, none of you ever has. I’ve been waiting for decades now, and I guess I can wait a few more. 😉

    You have a sentimental attachment to dogs, so you think it’s wrong to hurt them. Hindus have a religious attachment to cows, so they think it’s wrong to hurt them. Same.

    They are both mammals. You think hurting them for the sake of your PLEASURE (not necessity) is acceptable. Just as the participant in a dogfight is hurting the animal for the sake of their PLEASURE. What exactly is the difference? The difference is that everyone loves dogs in the West. Well, in the Philippines they eat dogs. So?

    What’s the difference between killing for the pleasure of your palate and killing for the pleasure of gambling?

    Our worldviews are just too different—we can agree to disagree. Take it as personally as you want to take it.

    Fine, but do not read into my remarks anything other than what I say. I say what I mean, and there is no reason to add meanings and attack strawfeminists or strawvegetarians.

  39. janie – Er, sorry. I wasn’t responding solely to you. I tend to write comments as if I’m talking to someone, but it’s more general. (With me, unless I mention someone specifically by name, any ‘you’s are general.)

    I was more responding to the folks in this thread who absolutely cannot understand why anyone would think it moral to kill and eat an animal, and to the people comparing meat-eaters to Michael Vick.

  40. I almost feel bad writing this, ’cause it feels like I’m asking for an exemption. “No, I have a REASON. I’m a MORAL meat-eater.”

    Actually, there IS a moral difference.

    Look, truth is, you don’t have the right to fucking judge someone. Not over this. You don’t know why they’re choosing to eat what they do, so lay off.

    I didn’t bring this up. Are you saying vegetarians are not supposed to respond to a thread about ETHICAL food? EXCUSE ME? If this thread said NO VEGETARIANS OR ANIMAL RIGHTS PEOPLE PLEASE, I would have stayed out. But the entire SUBJECT is “ethical” slaughter. Are you honestly saying we can’t or should not express our point of view in such a thread?

    If so, simply specify that you would not like to here from us, in particular, and next time, I will be sure to stay out. But spare me the “don’t judge me” etc. What is this whole thread if not a request for “judgment”? It is ABOUT ethics.

    What exactly are ethics if not moral judgment?

  42. Look. You have your choice about diet, I have mine. Don’t assume I don’t know where my meat comes from; I do. Don’t assume I am uncomfortable killing my meat; I’m not. Do I do so on a regular basis? No, I’m an urban dweller. Is it morally wrong to “outsource”? Hmm, did you sew all your own clothing? How about making all your own textiles with which that clothing is made? And don’t you know how polluting the textile industry is?

    Look. Why make the “perfect” the enemy of the “good”?

    :::snip:::

    La Lubu, just wanted to second that entire comment. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  43. I fail to see how my moral calculus with regard to my dietary choices makes me an “urban hipster” or a “prig.”

    Lillet, it isn’t your moral calculus. It’s the utter contempt with which you’ve addressed those who have come to different ethical conclusions.

    If you or Daisy wants to be a vegan, more power to you. If you or Daisy wants to try to persuade me with data and reasoned argument, feel free. If you or Daisy is going to treat those who embrace their inner omnivore with contempt and fling ad hominems around at folks who don’t agree with you (and each of you has done it at least once), then you really can’t expect anything but a hostile reaction.

  44. The old fashioned family-farm has not existed for many decades and is primarily a Eurocentric phenomenon, at that.

    My god-daughter’s best friend will be startled to hear that the family farm on which she grew up and which is still thriving doesn’t exist.

    Incidentally, I’ve noticed that you have yet to address the issue of consuming wild game (an issue raised both by myself and William). Interesting that, though not terribly surprising.

    If you think animals exist for you to kill and torture as you please, as my little brother did or Michael Vick do, and you don’t care about them, of course this would be your opinion. If you care about animals, you would be bothered by killing them.

    Excuse me for being blunt, but that is utter, unmitigated bullshit.

    Incidentally, how does your ethical construct account for the fact that hundreds of small animals are killed every time a large field is plowed? How does your ethical construct account for the studies that have demonstrated that plants have strong negative reactions to painful stimuli?

  45. Alix, it’s cool…I kind of figured you weren’t responding just to me but I was quoted so I just wanted to point out I wasn’t being and am generally not judgemental and I definitely understand and respect your position.

  46. Don’t we get a couple of kids a year starved by their parents on vegan diets all the time? Humans are omnivores, get over it.

  47. Farhat: nope. There is occasionally a case, which inevitably generates a huge amount of ignorant fuckwittery in the media, in which a baby dies and the cause of death is attributed (by the abusive parents or by others) to “veganism”.

    Further investigation, in every single case I have read about, has revealed that either the child had an undiagnosed illness, or that its abusers chose to withhold both breastmilk and infant formula and instead feed it on some idiotic concoction that was not an appropriate vegan infant diet (breastmilk) – or simply not feed it enough food at all.

    These cases, much like any half-snippet of twisted information that reinforces existing prejudices, is then thoroughly reinterpreted to suit the prejudices, and passed on and on and on as “proof” that the reviled group all fulfil the ascribed negative preconceptions.

    How many babies of omnivores have died this year from starvation, abuse, or failure to thrive? Don’t know? Why is that?

    [If you need a disclaimer: I’m an omnivore, and an outspoken critic of the absolutely dire state of medical, scientific, and nutritional reporting in the mainstream media.]

  48. Daisy, among the great myths of U.S. society is the idea that racism, sexism, capitalism, et. al. have always existed. They haven’t. Meat-eating has been part of human existence for the past two million years (at least). The structure of the human body and brain evolved with the adaptation to a diet that included meat.

    Does that necessarily mean everyone needs to eat meat? No, it doesn’t. I’m not trying to convince vegetarians or vegans to eat meat. That’s a personal, intimate choice akin to choices about sexuality—another area that tends to raise neck hairs.

    I understand why some people don’t want to kill an animal for their meal, just as I understand why some people choose pacifism and refuse to defend themselves physically. I don’t share that view, but I respect their choice to hold it. I don’t understand the hardcore view that animal products that don’t involve killing are also cruel; I fail to see the inherent cruelty in a wool sweater, or a frittata.

    So, we’re back to the perfect being the enemy of the good. It is extremely unlikely that millions of omnivores such as myself can be convinced to eschew meat. It is even less likely that we will be convinced to abandon all animal products. But it is possible to convert the factory farm system—a fairly recent development—to one of sustainable organic farming, such as the type bean discussed here. That idea has already taken hold throughout the U.S., and Europe is way ahead of the U.S.

    Is your argument that organic, sustainable farming does not reduce harm to animals? That it does not result in less environmental pollution? Already, omnivores are choosing organic; I live in central Illinois, and can’t find a store that doesn’t have organic as an option. In fact, it’s possible to get locally raised organic meat cheaper than factory farmed meat around here.

    Are you willing to let the perfect become the enemy of the good? Because industrial capitalism is poised to make the next pro-factory farm argument—converting animal excrement to oil.

  49. What is this whole thread if not a request for “judgment”? It is ABOUT ethics.

    What exactly are ethics if not moral judgment?

    Then judge the morals, not the people.

    Let’s put it this way – there’s a difference between saying “I won’t eat meat because I think it’s wrong to kill an animal just for my food” and saying “you murderer, how dare you eat meat?” The first is a personal moral argument, the second is an attack on everyone who disagrees with you. Excuse me for taking exception to that. Sorry that I think I deserve some respect for my own choices.

    Jeez.

  50. La Lubu, I just wanted to second this:

    Does that necessarily mean everyone needs to eat meat? No, it doesn’t. I’m not trying to convince vegetarians or vegans to eat meat. That’s a personal, intimate choice akin to choices about sexuality—another area that tends to raise neck hairs.

    And add that the tone of a couple people here reminds me of the die-hard sexual abstinence folks. You don’t want to do it? Fine. Want to tell me why you think it’s wrong? Fine. I’ll listen. Want to browbeat me over the head with your morals? I’ll pass, thanks.

  51. If you think animals exist for you to kill and torture as you please, as my little brother did or Michael Vick do, and you don’t care about them, of course this would be your opinion. If you care about animals, you would be bothered by killing them.

    You’re raising two very different issues as one and I know from your previous posts that you aren’t stupid, which leads me to wonder if perhaps you’re being intentionally disingenuous. Torturing an animal for entertainment is not equal to killing one for food. Being a creepy little sadist like your brother or someone with a hardon for bloodsport like Vick is very different from eating a burger. At the very broadest level there is a difference in intent and tenor that needs to be argued against separately. More importantly, not all killing is barbarism.

    Take modern hunting, for instance. Virtually all of the weapons and ammunition that is used in modern hunting is designed with one goal in mind: to kill the animal with the first shot. The hunting community has developed codes of ethics which universally revolve around reducing suffering as much as is possible. Even beyond that you have a large movement within the hunting community called “fair chase” which focuses on the ethics of reducing one’s advantage (http://www.huntfairchase.com/index.php/fuseaction/ethics.now)
    .

  52. Take modern hunting, for instance. Virtually all of the weapons and ammunition that is used in modern hunting is designed with one goal in mind: to kill the animal with the first shot. The hunting community has developed codes of ethics which universally revolve around reducing suffering as much as is possible. Even beyond that you have a large movement within the hunting community called “fair chase” which focuses on the ethics of reducing one’s advantage (http://www.huntfairchase.com/index.php/fuseaction/ethics.now)

    And perhaps it’s also worth mentioning that hunters are an important part of the environmental movement.

  53. saying “you murderer, how dare you eat meat?”

    Excuse me? When did I say this?

    Sounds like your guilty conscious to me. I never said any such thing. I do not go around accusing people of being “murderers” unless their names are Dubya and Rumsfeld.

    Torturing an animal for entertainment is not equal to killing one for food. Being a creepy little sadist like your brother or someone with a hardon for bloodsport like Vick is very different from eating a burger. At the very broadest level there is a difference in intent and tenor that needs to be argued against separately. More importantly, not all killing is barbarism.

    Why is it not equal, just because you say it isn’t? To me, it certainly is. Both activities are for the primary purpose of pleasure, aren’t they? Neither are necessary, at least not for everyone.

    “Tenor?” You mean, one is nasty and crude (low class?) and the other is supposedly “nice” (middle class)? Check out a slaughterhouse sometime, and get back to me. Just as gross as Michael Vick’s parties, actually, far far worse.

    As for hunting, I already stated (do people read?) that I believe hunting is certainly more morally responsible than leaving it to others to do your dirty work for you.

    The rest of the comments seem to be addressed to Strawvegetarian, so I’ll let Michael Stipe answer.

  54. And perhaps it’s also worth mentioning that hunters are an important part of the environmental movement.

    Just like Dubya is really part of the peace movement.

    Ask him, he’ll tell you.

  56. Hunters are strongly involved in conservation and environmental cleanup and restoration individually and collectively. There’s more hunters out doing hands-on cleanup work than there are say, registered Democrats doing hands-on phone banking and walking precincts. Shit, if Democrats had half the hands-on involvement in the political process as hunters do with the environment, we wouldn’t have Dubya as the pResident.

  57. Hunters are strongly involved in conservation and environmental cleanup and restoration individually and collectively. There’s more hunters out doing hands-on cleanup work than there are say, registered Democrats doing hands-on phone banking and walking precincts. Shit, if Democrats had half the hands-on involvement in the political process as hunters do with the environment, we wouldn’t have Dubya as the pResident.

    I live in SC, and all the hunters here vote for Lindsey Graham. You must be a yankee.

    Does this mean you aren’t going to answer the many questions I have asked in this thread? Why don’t you eat cats and dogs? Still waiting for a reply on that. Don’t they taste as good as the cows? (If you don’t know for sure, why don’t you eat one and find out?)

    In any event, I’ll answer your questions, when you answer mine.

  59. Why don’t you eat cats and dogs?

    Not really on the market, are they? And I don’t know how to kill an animal myself, though I want to learn. But I, personally, don’t see a moral problem with eating a cat or a dog. I have no problem with eating any kind of animal or plant, provided that it’s actually edible.

  60. Also (sorry for multiple comments… my brain is fried)…

    Daisy, the difference between torturing an animal for sport and quickly killing one for food is bright and clear:

    Intent.

    Intent matters. For a non-food example, killing someone who’s trying to kill me is way different than torturing and killing someone just for the hell of it.

    Most moral codes fail, in my opinion, in their lack of nuance.

  61. Why don’t I eat cats and dogs? I suppose because I grew up in a culture where cats and dogs aren’t eaten. I think it’s ludicrous to say that because a person doesn’t eat all forms of meat, or all forms of seafood, that it is somehow “wrong” to eat any seafood or meat. Following that train of thought, wouldn’t a vegetarian who didn’t want to eat peas or eggplant be shit outta luck—‘cuz all vegetables would then be off limits?

    Anyway, are you seriously claiming that hunters in South Carolina don’t participate in environmental cleanup efforts, or habitat restoration, or trail-building?

    And what’s this “yankee” business? I’m a midwesterner; I’m not from New England (not that there’s anything wrong with that, just sayin’).

    Yet again, the original point of the thread was the ethical practices of organic farming and how religious groups were now becoming interested in organic farming because those ethical concerns coincided with their religious practices. Entering the thread with the response that all meat is unethical isn’t exactly bringing anything to the table, so to speak (besides your opportunity to posture yourself as the righteous amongst sinners—perhaps that fits within the religious aspect of the topic. I’ll leave that to others to decide). It’s kind of like an omnivore going to a vegan recipe board with an armload of baby back rib recipes. And then complaining, “But it’s a recipe board!”

    Still waiting for that answer to a question that’s actually relevant to the topic, that is: are you willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good?”

  62. Ethical, sustainable farming, along with reduced eating of meat – I eat meat only once per week, which is something much more of the population is likely to do than become radical vegans, will do more good than bashing and naysaying those who would support you.

    I like this quote a lot. People can do some good simply by eating less meat and by buying meat that is not factory farmed. Yes the later is much more expensive– but you’re not buying nearly as much, so you make up for it there. This benefits the environment, the animals and the people eating less meat. It also helps the smaller independant organic farmers, and they’re good folks!

  63. Take modern hunting, for instance. Virtually all of the weapons and ammunition that is used in modern hunting is designed with one goal in mind: to kill the animal with the first shot. The hunting community has developed codes of ethics which universally revolve around reducing suffering as much as is possible. Even beyond that you have a large movement within the hunting community called “fair chase” which focuses on the ethics of reducing one’s advantage (http://www.huntfairchase.com/index.php/fuseaction/ethics.now)

    And perhaps it’s also worth mentioning that hunters are an important part of the environmental movement.

    Heck, if it weren’t for hunters, the conservation and environmental movements in places like Wisconsin wouldn’t be half as strong as they are now.

  64. In the end, either you feel it is acceptable to kill animals for food, or not. And that is the bottom line.

    Or are you going to argue about that, too? That it is somehow more ‘complicated’ than the fact of killing for the simple pleasure of your palate and the yumminess of meat? It isn’t.

    And sorry, I don’t think that reason is good enough. You do. End of story.

  65. The old fashioned family-farm has not existed for many decades and is primarily a Eurocentric phenomenon, at that

    I could show you any of a dozen within half an hour of where I live; we bought hamburger and a ham steak at one of them today – raised without antibiotics, growth hormone and so forth (the butcher who packaged the meat is, rather entertainingly, named Blood). I live in a city.

  66. Why is it not equal, just because you say it isn’t? To me, it certainly is. Both activities are for the primary purpose of pleasure, aren’t they? Neither are necessary, at least not for everyone.

    “Tenor?” You mean, one is nasty and crude (low class?) and the other is supposedly “nice” (middle class)? Check out a slaughterhouse sometime, and get back to me. Just as gross as Michael Vick’s parties, actually, far far worse.

    And you’re accusing me of building strawmen and being unable to read? This is a thread about ethical food, not about factory farms. You are conflating the general practice of eating meat (which many people here are defending) with support for factory farming (which no one here is defending). Thats the very definition of a strawman.

    What myself and most of the people who have been in favor of eating meat in this discussion have said is that were in favor of methods that reduce suffering as much as is possible. The goal of dogfighting is watching prolonged pain, the goal of killing a cow for a steak and a nice pair of shoes is the steak and the shoes. The acts are not equal because one demands torture as a central portion of the act while the other only allows torture as a byproduct which could be minimized through ethical farming and hunting practices.

    Put another way: if someone broke into your home you shot them, and they died of the injury, I’d call that self defense. If you instead knocked them out, tied them up, and worked them over with a tire iron until they died, I’d call that murder.

    As for the slaughterhouse, you’re again bringing up a strawman. Were talking about ethical kill practices. Sure, slaughterhouses are gross, but that really shouldn’t matter at all. What happens to a carcass once its dead is, at best, a public health matter that has nothing to do with the ethics of eating meat.

    As for hunting, I already stated (do people read?) that I believe hunting is certainly more morally responsible than leaving it to others to do your dirty work for you.

    You don’t get to have it both ways. Above you made it pretty clear that you equated any killing of an animal for food with dogfighting, and then you described anything other than hunting as even worse than dogfighting. So which is it? Is any killing of an animal for food (which, as you asserted, you feel is mostly for pleasure) morally unacceptable? If so, then why the soft defense of hunting? Wrong is wrong, right?

    I live in SC, and all the hunters here vote for Lindsey Graham. You must be a yankee.

    Does this mean you aren’t going to answer the many questions I have asked in this thread? Why don’t you eat cats and dogs? Still waiting for a reply on that. Don’t they taste as good as the cows? (If you don’t know for sure, why don’t you eat one and find out?)

    In any event, I’ll answer your questions, when you answer mine

    What the hell does being northern or southern have to do with anything? Stop dropping your red herrings. Come on up north and I’ll show you just as many hunters as there are in your neck of the woods.

    Anyway, I’ll answer your question. I’ve never eaten a dog or a cat because I’ve never been in a country where they were served. Still, I’d guess that they probably wouldn’t be to my taste. I’ve eaten meat from other carnivores and it tends to be tough and have a quality I’m not fond of. Beyond that I don’t really like the meat from smaller animals for a similar reason. Also, I’ve eaten both fox and coyote and wasn’t particularly fond of it, so I can extrapolate from there.

    In the end, either you feel it is acceptable to kill animals for food, or not. And that is the bottom line.

    Or are you going to argue about that, too? That it is somehow more ‘complicated’ than the fact of killing for the simple pleasure of your palate and the yumminess of meat? It isn’t.

    Is it? Then why the comment about hunters being morally superior back at #53? Was that actually how you felt? Were you saying something you didn’t believe in an attempt to diffuse someone else’s argument? Do you really believe that some killing for food is more morally responsible than others but still unacceptable? If thats the case, why even bother to make the distinction? If it is such an uncomplicated issue why do you muddy the waters by creating a hierarchy of wrongdoing, why do you recognize nuances within the same sin?

  67. That it is somehow more ‘complicated’ than the fact of killing for the simple pleasure of your palate and the yumminess of meat? It isn’t.

    I think that, as with almost everything, there are other factors. Health. Availability. Money. Culture. Religion. Environment. And so on.

    I don’t think that reason is good enough.

    Fair enough.

    And I apologize for coming off harsh in some earlier comments; what is directness in person tends to come off as rudeness online.

  68. I don’t know how someone could know exactly where their meat comes from and still decide to eat it.

    Easily. My grandparents are from a tiny town in Ukraine. If they didn’t raise animals for food, they didn’t eat. Simple as that. So they knew exactly where their food came from and they could live with that.

    Since the moral aspect of the argument has been handled well by Willian, Alix, etc, I’ll just mention another reason people might chose to eat meat – availability and money. I think a lot of people are forgetting just what a privilege veganism is. Sure, you could eat a healthy, complete vegan or vegetarian diet but doing so depends on availability and affordablity of food items. I don’t eat red meat or pork and I know for a fact that I spend more money on my food, even in summer when I shop at the farmer’s market, than people who do eat meat. For most of my life, I’ve lived near health food stores, but I bet that most people don’t have seitan, tempeh, and other protein substitutes readily available. I have a few vegan friends and they will be the first to admit that maintaining a healthy vegan diet requires money, planning and creativity. Not everyone has enough money or time for that.

  69. lurker:

    I don’t eat red meat or pork and I know for a fact that I spend more money on my food, even in summer when I shop at the farmer’s market, than people who do eat meat. For most of my life, I’ve lived near health food stores, but I bet that most people don’t have seitan, tempeh, and other protein substitutes readily available. I have a few vegan friends and they will be the first to admit that maintaining a healthy vegan diet requires money, planning and creativity. Not everyone has enough money or time for that.

    Beans and rice are cheap, and I live on them. Takes very LITTLE preparation to put beans and onions in a pot and cook them. I learned that from my grandmother, who was not a vegetarian.

    I’m sure I’m fairly poor compared to most of you here; I live in an apartment, not a house. I drive a Saturn. I rarely cook anything too complicated. Do you really think Tibetan monks spend a long time planning their menus?

    william:

    The goal of dogfighting is watching prolonged pain, the goal of killing a cow for a steak and a nice pair of shoes is the steak and the shoes.

    Actually, I disagree totally here. Speaking of north and south, I guess you aren’t familiar with the culture of dogfighting.

    The ‘goal’ of dogfighting is the same as a bullfight or a greyhound/horse race: male camaraderie/bonding and gambling. The participants simply do not see the animal as anything but an object, a means to an end. It’s like a car; you wouldn’t feel upset about racing a car, would you? The in-breeding of hyperviolent dogs that have little or no resemblance to “pets” are the way they can objectify the dogs as “different” than their own beloved pets.

    IMO, this is exactly how people can distance themselves from animal death in the consumption of meat; it is labeled “food” instead of animals. Dogfighting and horse-racing are labeled “sports” to the people who participate. I am talking about the language and practice of ‘alienation’ (marxist definition) as applied to our use of animals.

    Is any killing of an animal for food (which, as you asserted, you feel is mostly for pleasure) morally unacceptable? If so, then why the soft defense of hunting? Wrong is wrong, right?

    I don’t (haha!) defend hunting. My view is that this kind of alienation I have described is virtually impossible for one who does their own killing. Modern marketing and packaging of meat (which is where factory farming comes into it) exacerbates the alienation that I feel is at the heart of continued mass consumption of meat. When people don’t have to deal personally with blood and gore, their ability to objectify animals as “food” is far easier.

    What the hell does being northern or southern have to do with anything? Stop dropping your red herrings. Come on up north and I’ll show you just as many hunters as there are in your neck of the woods.

    This was directed to those who claim the hunters are environmentalist. Not here they aren’t, is my point, and yeah, I can prove that. NOBODY but a few protesters at the Savannah River Site are committed environmentalists here; they have systematically driven the rest out of the state.

    Environmentalism, unfortunately, is considered LEFTISM PERSONIFIED here. Which is why they get away with dumping nuclear waste and farming out large portions of my state to Michelin, Fuji, BMW, etc. My reference to Lindsey Graham was deliberate. The NRA had a big thing going on last election, in which the Dem candidate got out his gun and shot it in a commercial (I wish I was making this up)…the idea was that pansy Lindsey wouldn’t be so bad-ass. So, Lindsey has to PROVE that he is, etc. The NRA is the big lobby here for hunters, not the National Wildlife Federation, the hunters you are all referring to in this thread.

    Do you really believe that some killing for food is more morally responsible than others but still unacceptable? If thats the case, why even bother to make the distinction?

    Of course. I realize that there are no veggies in the Arctic in the wintertime, I took 4th grade geography, okay? I am not as gung-ho as you all seem to believe; I am not vegan. Cheese is my friend, and no animals were KILLED to make it, which is where I draw the line.

    I work in alternative medicine, and I know that some old people start an unexplained “wasting away” at certain ages, and require massive amounts of protein, as certain people with HIV or Hep C also do. Some do very well with whey protein, but lactose-intolerant people can’t use this. Soy protein tends to go right through them. Hemp protein is a very good alternative, though, but as you say, can get expensive… BUT if we did not have to import it from Canada, where medical hemp is LEGAL, that would bring the price way down…don’t get me started on all that. 😛

    Suffice to say, I am not a heartless vegetarian, trying to make people suffer with no tuna sandwiches. I understand that if an animal attacks me, I have the right to kill it, and believe that is justified. If someone is stranded on a desert island and has nothing to eat but figs and is in danger of wasting away, by all means, roast some quail.

    I am talking about MASS CONSUMPTION OF ANIMALS, which yes, I believe is WRONG.

  70. A lengthy reply of mine is still in moderation, but I’ll go ahead and clarify what I meant here:

    I said:

    The old fashioned family-farm has not existed for many decades and is primarily a Eurocentric phenomenon, at that

    I should clarify, I mean a farm that supports all of its members on only what it grows. My daughter lives on a ranch/farm, and still goes to the grocery store. She eats pop-tarts like everyone else.

    Few farms of the old style can survive the modern economy; there are a tremendous amount of bureaucratic regulations required for slaughter and packing. Few “regular” folks can afford the fees and the lawyers.

    we bought hamburger and a ham steak at one of them today – raised without antibiotics, growth hormone and so forth (the butcher who packaged the meat is, rather entertainingly, named Blood).

    Then this is not what I mean by a family farm. Meat certified by the government as USDA Organic has to pass a lot of inspections, far more than the conventional beef industry. Most ma and pa (or ma and ma, if you please) family farms can not afford to compete in this realm. A few I know have transitioned, but very, very few. It certainly isn’t a way of life as it once was, but largely a novelty and/or gourmet thing, which is what I meant.

  72. I should clarify, I mean a farm that supports all of its members on only what it grows. My daughter lives on a ranch/farm, and still goes to the grocery store. She eats pop-tarts like everyone else

    That is an exceedingly restrictive and, I would say, pointless definition; how long has it been since farms did regularly support themselves only on what they grew, without exchanging some portion of what they raised for money? Yes, a farm that grew, say, potatoes for a cash crop would also have a cow, a goat, pigs, some chickens to provide milk and meat to the family, but they would also use the money from their cash crop to supplement their diet. And that is pretty much what you find by the dozen around here: small farms with a primary crop, quite frequently apples here, run by the same family for generations, with some chickens running around, a few cows (most of them do not sell milk, as it requires a relatively large amount of expensive processing, though we have at least two dairys within fifteen minutes of here). If you’re there on the right day, there’s eggs, often from free-roaming hens; there’s frequently honey (the orcharders need the bees) or maple syrup, often baked goods (and that was not organic meat, by the way, only grass-raised, no hormones). I’m sure they don’t only eat what they raise; that is rather the point of selling stuff for money, in fact. The meat is more expensive than in the supermarket, but orchard apples are both higher-quality and cheaper, as is local organic produce, especially if one has the fridge space to buy one’s carrots by the twenty-pound bag. Farm eggs are frequently cheaper than store-bought cage-free, and much, much tastier.
    Incidentally, slaughter and packing are generally not done at the farm, but outsourced to someone who does have the necessary qualifications.

  73. I would like to hear a principled difference between eating pigs and eating newborn human children. The pig is much smarter.

    Someone might say: well, the infant can become very smart. Okay. What about an infant born with severe mental retardation? Okay for parents to kill and eat, or not okay? (Assume they use humane kill practices, since that seems to matter to some of you.)

  75. Armagh444:

    What I meant by using the phrase “faux gratitude” was not meant to be an ad hominem attack, although I can only blame my own sloppiness and haste in posting for your interpretation of it as such. I am sure that you do indeed feel grateful for the food that you consume.

    What I was trying to say is that I don’t think that feelings of gratitude, no matter how sincere, have much to do with the morality of meat eating or animal product consumption, as the gratitude one feels makes no difference to the animal that is consumed. Whether you said the most beautiful and heartfelt grace before your meal or whether you didn’t give a crap, the animal in question’s fate and experience will have remained the same, much in the way that if a thief steals my purse and privately somewhere feels incredible gratitude that he is able to feed his family this week through its contents doesn’t make much difference to my situation. So I repeat, I am not impugning your feelings of gratitude, but I just don’t think that feeling grateful mitigates the moral issues implicit in meat consumption. The gratitude trope gets deployed so often among omnivores and I think in many cases (and not necessarily yours, but in many) it just masks a kind of ethical sloppiness that I find wearisome, hence a less-considered-than-usual response to your comment.

    Also, I think (this addressed to the comment thread in general) that it isn’t fair to say that the anti-meat-eating commenters are making the “perfect the enemy of the good:” in fact it seems one could argue that the “ethical omni” commenters are trying to make “the better the enemy of the good.”

    Yes, pasture fed beef suffers less before slaughter than factory farmed beef. And hell yes, a chicken laying eggs in one’s backyard suffers far, FAR less than a battery hen. But when you cut animal products from your diet, you are still minimizing both your carbon footprint and what one could term one’s “suffering footprint” more than even Michael Pollan on his best behavior. Yes, animals get killed in tilling fields, and everyone’s consumptive choices entail some degree of suffering, even just by being a taxpayer in the United States we are responsible for suffering. But that doesn’t vitiate our responsibility to try to cause the least suffering possible, and that’s not really a hard or onerous thing to do, and not simply throw up our hands and say, “well, since in all likelihood a bunch of foxes got killed when this wheat was harvested I might as well get a side of bacon.” [Hyperbole not directed at any particular person.]

    Oh and I am the sole income earner for my household, in NYC and I make 41K a year, and we have no problem eating vegan/local/mostly organic while supporting my husband and paying off a ton of loan debt. It really isn’t just an “elite thing” and it’s totally do-able. When I ate meat I thought being vegan would be im-fucking-possible and it really truly is not. Try it for a month and see!

    Sincerely, L

    P.S. I’ve seen footage from kosher slaughterhouses and I think it is safe to say that the animals are suffering when they get slaughtered. I had always assumed somehow that that was not the case until I was forced to really examine it.

  76. Magikmama,

    I sincerely wasn’t trying to bash you, if that is what you thought. I just now saw your comment. I do think we are in agreement on many issues. I was not, however “conveniently forgetting” that not everyone eats factory farmed meat — I do sincerely applaud your insistence on abstaining from meat produced in that manner.

    I support local sustainable and organic farms, and I do support reduced eating of meat — I’ve reduced mine to none. 🙂 yes, not everyone is going to make that choice, but I get impatient with the whole idea that veganism is a de facto SCARY and RADICAL choice and only a few people do it, when in fact once you do it it isn’t like that at all — or rather, I was astonished at how not a big deal it was and how much sense it made to me when I made that change.

  77. How long is my comment going to stay in moderation?

    No, not a duplicate. I am simply asking AGAIN. Other comments are going through, what is the problem with that one?

  78. Daisy, I don’t know for sure, but based on my reading of this blog over the last few years, I would guess that the comment you’re complaining of got caught in one of the spam filters. That just happens sometimes. Usually, they’re pretty good about getting things out of moderation quickly, but each comment has to be released individually (if I remember what has been said here previously) and with Jill out of town and at least one of the guest-bloggers in a situation where she can’t check the filter as often as she would like (based on comments she made, anyway), it’s probably just taking a bit longer than normal for things to get unstuck.

  79. Dana wrote:

    Re: the animal being conscious during kashrut or halal slaughter: What’s the alternative? If you dope it up with drugs you risk the health of those who will consume it; also, Muslims are forbidden to consume drugs that change consciousness unless their lives depend on it.

    In conventional slaughter, the animals are almost always rendered unconscious with electric shocks. (A few operations use high concentrations of carbon dioxide to make them pass out.) No one uses “drugs,” for the reason Dana cites (they would contaminate the meat). Dana is again correct in stating that the animal’s heart should still be beating when its throat is cut, so that it will bleed out all the way.

    Jewish people who defend kashrut slaughter swear up and down that it’s more humane. That seems dubious to me, but not something I’d be prepared to argue over very much. The animal ends up dead either way.

  80. Daisy, I don’t know for sure, but based on my reading of this blog over the last few years, I would guess that the comment you’re complaining of got caught in one of the spam filters. That just happens sometimes. Usually, they’re pretty good about getting things out of moderation quickly, but each comment has to be released individually (if I remember what has been said here previously) and with Jill out of town and at least one of the guest-bloggers in a situation where she can’t check the filter as often as she would like (based on comments she made, anyway), it’s probably just taking a bit longer than normal for things to get unstuck.

    It’s only the length of WAR AND PEACE!

    Anyway, ain’t typing the Epistle to The Romans again, yall. 😉 Hope they unstick it, because it was pretty good, if I do say so myself.

  81. Jewish people who defend kashrut slaughter swear up and down that it’s more humane. That seems dubious to me, but not something I’d be prepared to argue over very much. The animal ends up dead either way

    Yes, and concentrating only on the way it’s made dead ignores the much greater stresses that can happen pre-slaughter. If you look at Temple Grandin’s website she’s got a lot of interesting stuff on reducing stress prior to slaughter.

  83. If you’re there on the right day, there’s eggs, often from free-roaming hens; there’s frequently honey (the orcharders need the bees) or maple syrup, often baked goods (and that was not organic meat, by the way, only grass-raised, no hormones).

    But “being there on the right day” is not an option for millions of people. It’s nice for you, but not a workable option to feed the world, and that’s what I am discussing here.

    Once upon a time, family farms DID feed (most of) the whole world, unbelievably.

  84. As Ledasmom’s link indicates, slaughter operations have become very sophisticated about reducing stress prior to slaughter. It’s probably unnecessary to point this out, but these efforts have little or nothing to do with treating the animal humanely. It’s all about reducing the off-flavors or other damage that severe stress can cause to the meat.

  86. Actually, Daisy, I’m not sure what you are discussing here. Where I live, there’s a farmer’s market right in the middle of the city three days a week, supplied only by local (mostly family) farms. It’s not exactly a luxury market, only for the well-to-do, you know; it’s considerably more accessible to those without cars than any of the local supermarkets. I think you’re underestimating the extent to which this sort of farming can feed the population.

  87. Hello all! Just wanted to put in my two cents on this. I’ve been a *full on* vegetarian since January 1989. By that I mean, I eat no large animals, fish, seafood or fowl. At the time, I was a hardcore animal rights activist who spent a lot of time telling people how evil they were for eating hamburgers.

    Now I don’t see things as so black and white. Although I don’t have any desire to do so myself, I can understand how meat eating can be a sustainable practice. Many of us can afford to make choices about our meat eating and and I don’t think anyone would disagree with my saying that if most people ate a bit less meat, it would help the environment.

    However, attacking peope and name-calling has never helped me win any vegetarian “converts.” It just gives people more reason to believe (falsely) that vegatarians and vegans are a bunch of self-righteous a**holes.

    Then reality is that everyone, even vegans, is responsible for a few animal deaths. Do you think that no animals ever get killed by the machines that harvest vegetables? Also, cheese is NOT vegetarian. Try looking up what rennet is. If it’s not specified as “vegetable rennet,” then there was an animal involved.

    Mostly, let’s not get nasty. Most people on here seem to agree that we’d alll like for the animals that ARE killed, be killed in the most humane way possible.

    BTW, for all, I HIGHLY recommend Barbara Kingsolver’s book “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle.” She really discusses modern food production and our relationship with food in an eloquent and thoughtful way.

  88. Lillet, there are a few questions that I think need to be answered by anyone who sets vegetarianism and veganism as morally superior to being an omnivore and who demands that others become vegans. I have yet to see any of the vegans on this thread address the questions, and I’m not sure if that’s on purpose or if it’s just an issue of how long the thread has become.

    First, how do you address the fact that many small animals are killed every time a field is plowed?

    Second, what do your propose be done with all of the cows in the United States if everyone stops eating meat? They have been domesticated for far too long for them to be capable of living in the wild. Also, what do you propose we do for the hundreds (possibly thousands) of deer that would die of starvation every year if hunters did not cull their populations?

    Third, given that animals and plants both feel a form of pain when injured, what is the ethical and moral distinction between killing an animal to eat it and killing a plant?

    (OT side note, I’ve actually done the vegetarian thing before. In fact, I was a vegetarian for almost ten years – why I returned to meat-eating is complicated. During that time, I never perceived my choice as being morally superior to those made by people who chose to eat meat.)

  89. I don’t know. I don’t buy meat, fewer (not many fewer, but still fewer) cows are killed for me to pay for, fewer cows are raised, less poop and methane gets produced, less grain, water, etc gets used. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand people and it becomes significant. And I set a tiny example for many other people in my life that it’s possible to eat happily and healthily without meat.

  90. I don’t know. I don’t buy meat, fewer (not many fewer, but still fewer) cows are killed for me to pay for, fewer cows are raised, less poop and methane gets produced, less grain, water, etc gets used. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand people and it becomes significant. And I set a tiny example for many other people in my life that it’s possible to eat happily and healthily without meat.

    OK, I realize I’m late to the party here, but I had to respond to this. A slightly reduced demand for meat does NOT equal a slight reduction in production of meat. This is a radical oversimplification of economics. The industry doesn’t work on straight supply and demand.

    If there’s a reduced demand for meat, meat will become cheaper. Fast food restaurants will make their burgers bigger, and their food cheaper than it already is, solidifying their place as the most affordable source of a hot meal for working people who don’t have time to cook and can’t afford restaurant food every day. And meat eaters who couldn’t afford to buy steak before might just do so. The meat industry will advertise more, and chain restaurants will push their meat-based entrees. They will, in other words, do everything they can do to create a demand for meat, and failing that they will overproduce to such an extent that their product goes to waste, because overproduction is more profitable than taking a loss.

    This is the case with other industries as well; if you’re worried about greenhouse gas emissions, ask yourself why we’re overproducing corn. The food industry has found hundreds of ways, literally, to convert corn into food additives like high fructose corn syrup, but there’s still enough of a glut that millions of tons of surplus grain are dumped into the ocean every year. It’s more profitable to do that than to use it to feed hungry people and thereby reduce grain prices. And now the latest scam is ethanol production, which creates more carbon emissions in growing corn than it reduces when used for transportation. It’s not a solution to global warming; it’s a way for agribusiness to overproduce without suffering the economic consequences, which it then passes on to us.

    If you’re happy and healthy not eating meat, go for it, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that you’re saving a cow’s life somewhere.

  91. Pingback: Feministe » My Favorite Concept Ever…

  92. Quote: “First, how do you address the fact that many small animals are killed every time a field is plowed?

    “Second, what do your propose be done with all of the cows in the United States if everyone stops eating meat? They have been domesticated for far too long for them to be capable of living in the wild. Also, what do you propose we do for the hundreds (possibly thousands) of deer that would die of starvation every year if hunters did not cull their populations?

    “Third, given that animals and plants both feel a form of pain when injured, what is the ethical and moral distinction between killing an animal to eat it and killing a plant?”

    I’d like to address these questions, late as I am to come back.

    Small animals are killed in the harvesting of plant crops. Using a qualitative word such as “many” seems quite deceiving here. It would almost make you think that it was many per person, however the number is actually rather small per person.*1 Another thing to consider is the fact that most corn, wheat, and soy grown in the USA is fed to animals.*2 It is extremely inefficient to feed animals to eat them – many calories are wasted. (Animal eats plants, animal uses some calories for life processes and stores the rest – the ones the animal uses for life processes are lost.) Because of these lost calories, you kill more small animals by eating farmed animals than by eating the caloric equivalent of a farmed animals body in plants. Therefore, to feed a vegan you kill less small animals by crop harvesting than you do to feed a meat eater.

    Someone might say that entirely grass fed cattle are an exception. However, cattle destroy the habitats of animals; they trample plant life, poop on plants with their maladaptive poop, ruin burrows with their hard hooves, and eat plants wholly, which kills them and leaves no food for other animals. Throughout human history, lush forests become deserts in the wake of our cattle. We bred them to be complacent and big, not sustainable. Ranchers also kill many animals to protect their herd, from small burrowers to medium sized predators. This is not a win-win situation.

    For now, the way to spare the most lives is to quit eating animals. If we didn’t have that huge number of 60 BILLION farmed land animals eaten per year looming over our consciouses, I’m sure we’d focus on finding out ways to stop killing animals with combines on farms.

    Next: I propose that domesticated cows become extinct. Being domesticated was never for their own good in the first place. We never considered their interests. We took an independent, powerful, well-adapted creature and turned it into a meat-milk machine. The domesticated cow is not a beneficiary of any ecosystem (quite the opposite). The ONLY reason they exist is so we can use them as we please. That’s pretty sick, and if by ending their breeding (letting any remainders live the rest of their lives in farm sanctuaries) we can end that cycle of violence, then it’s much more life-affirming than continuing to breed and kill the members of a species because that’s “all they’re good for.”

    Also, considering that the world would never go vegan overnight, the number of cows bred into existence would decrease over time. It’s not like the sanctuaries of the world would find several million homeless cows overnight.

    Next: Plants don’t feel pain.

    Find me one peer reviewed scientific study that proves that plats feel PAIN – the burden of proof lies on you. It’s a ridiculous assertion and I will tell you why.

    First, we’ll look at the psychological mechanisms of pain.

    Sensation: when you are touched, you feel it because you have nerves that signal to your brain that something is changing their state. Your brain then interprets these signals. If it is pain, your brain may often make a decision to move faster than you can think. Even more evolutional, is that sometimes your spine will send signals down to your limb telling it to move before even your brain knows what is happening. When your brain receives input that it is in pain, it can trigger a fight or flight response to a perceived danger. Hormones flood our systems, changing the way we think and feel. All this is because we can avoid danger by moving.

    If we can’t move, we can’t avoid pain. There’s no reason to feel pain if we can do nothing about it.

    If we don’t have cells that are designed specifically to be sensitive to sensation and to transmit signals indicating those sensations to a processor, then we can’t feel pain.

    If we do not have a processor that receives those signals and interprets them as a painful experience, then we can’t feel pain.

    Plants have no nerves, no processor. They have no way to avoid an unpleasant sensation. Therefore, they have no reason to feel pain, and no mechanism to do so.

    The problem with the wording in the studies that everyone likes to bring up is that they personified plants. They attributed pain to a very simple process of reacting to stimuli. There’s a difference, and the difference is psychological. If I get cut, my exposed blood will congeal and create a scab. The blood does this not because the blood is hurting, but because it is reacting to a stimuli. Plants can also react to stemuli. They cannot, however, hurt.

    My question is this: Taking these things into account, that we can eat non sentient life that cannot feel pain, and that by doing so exclusively we can be healthy and cause less harm to sentient, feeling creatures, how can we justify living any other way? Causing suffering for food is unnecessary. Causing unnecessary suffering is unethical. How can we ever call an act that causes unnecessary suffering ethical?

    1: http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html
    2: Vesterby, Marlow and Krupa, Kenneth S. 2001 Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997 Statistical Bulletin No. (SB973) September 2001 http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf

Comments are currently closed.